Browse Promo

Browse Deals

Unnecessary escalation

Afghanistan quagmire now squarely belongs to Obama

Make no mistake, the quagmire in Afghanistan is no longer George W.
Bush's war. The new owner of this disastrous experiment to influence
the internal affairs of a country that has successfully resisted any
and all intrusions by outside forces throughout history now belongs
fully and completely to President Barack Obama and the Democrat
majorities in Congress. And like the air going out of a balloon, those
who once backed both Obama and the Democrats are deflating nationwide
as the cruel canard of "change and hope" disintegrates before their
very eyes.

The details of Obama's escalation—and there's nothing else to
call it—have been known for days. The president will send 30,000
additional American troops to the hell-hole of the Hindu Kush in
addition to the 22,000 he has already sent there in the first year of
his administration, bringing the primarily American forces to about
100,000.

Following far too closely in the footsteps of his Republican
predecessor, President Obama delivered his speech Tuesday night at West
Point. It's the same place Bush first announced, more than eight years
ago, that America's new foreign policy would include "preemptive
actions" against any nation believed to threaten the U.S. As we know,
Bush went on to invade Afghanistan and temporarily rout the Taliban,
claiming he was "on the hunt" for Osama bin Laden. As we also know,
despite all his tough talk, Bush never did find bin Laden despite all
the years, the deaths and the hundreds of billions spent on a useless
war.

Now comes Obama, who says he will immediately send another 30,000
troops to Afghanistan, while also planning to begin "bringing our
troops home" in 2010.

Obama's strategy, if you can call it that, is like the "Hokey-Pokey"
dance where "you put your right foot in, you pull your right foot
out..." This presidential ploy is little more than a sorry
bait-and-switch designed to mislead the American people into escalating
a war we neither want nor can afford. Meanwhile, it is American
families who will suffer the loss of loved ones while American
taxpayers pour even more billions of dollars down the black hole of the
Afghanistan.

When the end of 2010 rolls around, however, it is virtually
impossible that we will have achieved a "victory" by turning
Afghanistan from a wilderness of individual warlords and tribes into a
strong centralized government with armed forces capable of controlling
400 individual provinces scattered across some of the most inhospitable
terrain on the planet. And then, of course, will pour forth the endless
excuses to extend the war, beginning with "conditions on the ground
dictate our continued effort."

And for what? Obama now believes that we must expand the war to prop
up the incredibly weak government of Hamid Karzai, a ruler who "won" an
election in which international voting monitors detailed hundreds of
incidents of phony ballots cast by non-existent citizens. Unanswered,
too, is the question of why we would want to legitimize a corrupt ruler
whose own brother is believed to be deeply involved in the opium trade
that is fueling those now fighting and killing American troops.

Nonetheless, Obama has just committed us to a disaster in the making
for his presidency, the Democrat Party and the nation. Ironically, the
speech to expand the war, the carnage and the astronomical cost comes
just before he picks up his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway. Were the
consequences not so tragic, the juxtaposition of Obama's version of war
and peace would be hilarious.

For the moment, however, suppose the phony "exit strategy" actually
happens. If it does, it won't be because the generals decide to quit,
since war is their business. But it could happen if the American
people, after a decade of continuous, expensive and senseless wars,
finally decide we've had enough and demand that our troops come
home.

What will be left behind? Well, let's just take a look at what we're
leaving behind in Iraq as a likely example of what will happen in
Afghanistan. Just last week a report was issued to the U.N. by British
and Iraqi medical experts that detailed conditions in the city of
Fallujah, where some of the heaviest fighting took place. According to
the report, the birth deformities there are 15 times higher than before
the 2003 American invasion. The likely cause, say the doctors, is the
use of depleted uranium in artillery by the U.S. military—and the
result is horrific. According to the findings, "24 percent of the
children born at the city's general hospital in September died within
seven days. Three quarters of them had deformities such as two heads,
no head, a single eye, or missing limbs." You read it right: "two
heads, no head, a single eye or missing limbs." Contrast this
post-invasion tragedy with the statistics from 2002, prior to the
invasion, and "only one of 530 children born there died, and only one
had deformities."

What civilized nation would ever consider causing such monstrosities
a justifiable outcome of waging war? How can Obama or Congress ignore
the realities of their actions simply by rationalizing them away as
necessary to protect our national security—especially when most
of the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks came not from Afghanistan or
Iraq, but from Saudi Arabia?

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told the members of Congress that
the $100 billion authorized to continue the wars earlier this year
would be the last time she would ask for such approval. But now, make
no mistake, she will be forced by Obama's decision to ask yet again. If
Democrats has a scintilla of conscience or moral fortitude, they would
refuse to fund the escalation.

That, however, is unlikely to happen. Instead, under Obama's
"Hokey-Pokey" charade, we will continue an unjust, immoral and
disastrous war that is virtually guaranteed to create mortal enemies
instead of some amorphous victory.

Helena's George Ochenski rattles the cage of the political
establishment as a political analyst for the Independent. Contact
Ochenski at opinion@missoulanews.com.